I'm so sick of the term "game manger" because I refuse to buy into it being a bad thing. To me Tom Brady is a game manager and so is the older Manning fellow. They call the plays, they alter the plays, they alter the coverage...by definition they are managing the game. Why does it have such a backwards connection? Why do we (sports fans) take what would should be a good thing to be called and switch it to something bad?

I think a large part of what that stat illustrates, to me, anyways, is that Luck had more pass attempts when trailing than Wilson had pass attempts while not-tied. Wilson is just not asked to throw the football very often.

Which is totally true. It also is a large part of why he's considered a game manager. He's not asked to do much other than not fuck it up. That doesn't mean he's incapable of being more than a game manager, it just means that's all he's being tasked with right now and it's all he's doing. To be fair he's doing it better than any other game manager to play the game to my recollection.

When did I say anything about defense or S/T scoring? 'Not fucking up' does not mean all he had to do was go 3 and out every drive without turning the ball over. There were only 3 games all year that the Seahawks needed more than 3 TDs to win, counting each TD as 7. 24 teams averaged enough points per week to win all but 3 of Seattle's games. Every team in the league averaged more points for than Seattle allowed.

No, being asked to 'not fuck up' doesn't mean sit back and go 3 and out every drive. It means throw when needed, don't turn the ball over and sit back while the run game and defense dominate the game. The offense still has to score with a game manager. He's just not the center piece of the machine.

I agree entirely. I wasn't trying to imply that his was fine and yours was ridiculous; I think both are equally silly, since they provide such a narrow view of a small sample size that we don't really learn anything from it. If a quarterback is on a team that is consistently ahead 13-0 in the fourth quarter, and no team has managed to score on the defense, a quarterback is generally only going to attempt one, maybe two high percentage passes.

That quarterback's fourth quarter rating is going to be absurd. Then you have the Eli Manning phenomenon where an otherwise bad quarterback becomes amazing in the fourth.

I still take issue with it being called "equally silly", for the reasons I enumerated above. Unless the score is like 30-0 in the 2nd quarter, most game plans are going to be the same as they were entering the game. You can't say the same about being up by 3 in the 1st quarter vs being down 3 in the 4th quarter. One has a high correlation to success/failure, but the raw behind/ahead/tied stats have almost none.

Most of Russell Wilson's good plays, even when he sets and throws immediately usually features him getting plowed or the OL getting collectively owned.

Wilson wasnt at his best for a stretch there, but I'll never understand the pass the OL was getting. They were awful in pass protection nearly all year, hence their 32nd ranking in pass protection. Over the Saints and 49ers playoff games, Wilson was "pressured" on more than 50% of his dropbacks. That is nuts. That isn't normal.

Protect Wilson, he is usually pretty good. Seems simple. Can't expect him to dodge guys all the time

The Arizona Cardinals play action on TNF comes to mind. Like, 3-4 different Seahawks all get owned on the offensive line and he has to throw off his back foot for a touchdown.

Didnt watch enough (aka any, I'm only 24 so I only saw highlights) of Fran to know, so I wont act like I know how to accurately compare them beyond what others say that have got to see a lot of games from both of them.

Did Fran have a bad OL too?

Wilson holds onto the ball too long SOMETIMES, but there are normal plays all the time where he snaps, sets, throws, gets plowed.

Or snaps, wants to set, center/guard got owned immediately, has to scramble to make something happen

Wouldn't bad O line play cause him to get rid of it quicker? Even if you only look at his time to attempt, taking all the scrambles past the line of scrimmage out of it he's got the second longest time in the league behind Foles.

Combine a WR core that doesn't get consistent separation (catches in traffic are our specialty, but that increases pressure on the QB) with an O line that melts every other play and you get Wilson having to scramble almost immediately just to buy his receivers time. I can't tell you how many times he was flushed out of the pocket in less than two seconds just so his routes could develop.

You're right. I forgot, Russel Wilson is already a perfect QB with no room for improvement and can do no wrong. Anything negative that might be perceived about him is 100% on the rest of his terrible team that he singularly carries to wins.

No, you didn't say that. Yes, I'm being extreme to make my point. Seahawks fans just can't bare to read a comment that isn't praising Wilson for being amazing. It doesn't even have to be a comment calling him bad or overrated, just a hint of not talking about how great he is and there will be at least one Seahawk fan drop by to tell you why you're wrong and how amazing he actually is despite his bad line or bad receivers. But don't insult those receivers outside of praising Wilson, because then they'll tell you how awesome their receivers are and how criminally underrated the squad is.

Russel Wilson is a very good QB. But he's not the flawless second coming of Christ that Seahawks fans try to push on everyone else. You guys may not come out and actually call him perfect, but I rarely see a single criticism of him by any Seahawk fan, and any criticism that shows up from anyone else is immediately disputed. The only stats that matter are the one's that make him look good. The rest are met with, "well if you'd seen him play as much as I have," or, "I've seen him do this too many times." You wonder why other fanbases don't praise him like you do or call him overrated? It's because the vast majority of Seahawks fans hold him up as the greatest QB to ever play the game. Of course the rest of him think he's overrated when that's the attitude of his fanbase.

Hey man, I get it. Blind fanaticism is annoying. I'm assuming you aren't directing this at me, rather in the vague general direction of the northwest, seeing as all I was trying to do was give you a little context for the hold time statistic which two months ago people (not you) were using to claim Wilson was sub par because he wasn't hitting his progression quick enough. I got tired of that take because there is so much more that goes into average hold time.

So that's what I was saying.

As for the rest, I can at best give you generalized answers, as I am but one humble fan. Seahawks fans can take criticism of Wilson. He had a rough finish to last season, anyone would tell you that. He had a slower start a year ago. He sometimes tries to force a big play (thinking specifically of post season this year, he forced a throw to Baldwin that was nearly picked). He also fumbles a little bit to much to ignore. Those are real criticisms, and ones I see tossed around the Seahawks fanbase, a perspective you probably don't get (probably don't want to, either. Lot of homerism in there). What Seahawks fans get so irate about--perhaps too irate, but it keeps happening--is these false criticisms, things that sound bad but aren't based in truth, or have little to no affect on Wilson's game. People say he can't see over the line, this doesn't seem to make him any worse. People say he has a weak deep ball, its actually one of the best in the league. People say he is a "game manager", but they can't actually describe what that even means, beyond it's bad and Wilson is it. This stuff gets thrown at us all the goddamn time, probably because our fanbase has never been more polarizing. I get it, we are annoying. Unfortunately, not much we can do about that, but it shouldn't affect the way people analyze teams or players. Wilson is probably the tenth best passer in the league right now, taking into account his potential and also how much is still unknown. He is, after all, only 35 games into his career in the NFL. There are delusional fans that would rank him top five, top three, but there are fans in every fanbase that overrate their star players. The only ones who can say anything for certain are the Texans for JJ Watt.

As for the receivers, its a weird situation, I'll grant you that. We have no prototypical number one receiver, which is why people say our core is weak. We don't have a guy that gets consistent separation and stretches the field vertically. Rice is our closest to that, and he was playing off form before he got injured, who knows where he is at right now. The rest of our WRs had to catch in traffic, which they are good at, but it makes Wilson's job that much harder. Which is fine, because by most metrics he has done well. So yeah, people will say our core is weak, but they are also good at some things, namely YAC, broken tackles, and hands. None of which helps a QB get the ball out faster.

I understand your hyperbole, but no sane Seahawk is truly claiming Wilson to be the greatest of all time. He has a shitload of potential, and the fanbase is excited. Either we are right, and everyone else will accept what we've been saying all this time, or we are wrong, and yall get to make fun of us for a few years/all time. I get that it's annoying, but you have to at least understand why we feel this way.

What stats do you know of that make Wilson look bad beyond the volume stats, which for the ten thousandth time are outside of his control?

I got tired of that take because there is so much more that goes into average hold time.

Only thing I've ever said about his time to throw is that it make his O-line look worse than it is. Blame his time to throw on whoever you like, it made the line look a lot worse than it actually was. That's not even to say it was good. It just wasn't as bad as a lot of Seahawks fans would have us believe.

Seahawks fans can take criticism of Wilson.

In my experience, no. They can't. And that goes 10 fold for Seahawks fans on r/nfl.

and ones I see tossed around the Seahawks fanbase,

Only one I've ever seen "tossed around the Seahawks fanbase" is the fumbles. Even that's generally glossed over or blamed on the O-line.

a perspective you probably don't get (probably don't want to, either. Lot of homerism in there).

Definitely one I don't see. Not sure why I wouldn't want to see it though.

What Seahawks fans get so irate about--perhaps too irate, but it keeps happening--is these false criticisms,

That's what I'm getting at. All criticism of Wilson is viewed as false by Seahawks fans.

People say he can't see over the line, this doesn't seem to make him any worse.

Haven't seen that criticism in at least a year.

People say he has a weak deep ball, its actually one of the best in the league.

That's actually fair, and they're idiots. But it's very arguable whether it's one of the best in the league. It's been one of the most accurate the last two years, I won's dispute that.

People say he is a "game manager", but they can't actually describe what that even means, beyond it's bad and Wilson is it.

He is. I have. It's not. He is. Honestly though, I stand by the fact that he's a game mangers and I've explained multiple times in this thread and elsewhere what a game manager is. It's not bad. But Wilson is a game manager.

but it shouldn't affect the way people analyze teams or players.

That goes both ways. Just because Random Fan Number 4 wants to criticize Wilson doesn't mean the Seahawk fanbase needs to overcompensate. Which is basically what's going on with him right now.

Wilson is probably the tenth best passer in the league right now, taking into account his potential

Potential, yes, I totally agree. Tenth best passer in the league based on what he's actually done, no. There are at least 10 passers I'd rather have for the 2014 season than Wilson.

The rest of our WRs had to catch in traffic, which they are good at, but it makes Wilson's job that much harder.

This is a prime fucking example of what I've been talking about. A combination of praising Wilson for being great despite his receivers while at the same time complimenting those receivers for also being good.

but no sane Seahawk is truly claiming Wilson to be the greatest of all time.

No. Like I said, they just all refuse to acknowledge any flaws. Which by default would make him the greatest of all time.

What stats do you know of that make Wilson look bad beyond the volume stats,

Point out the time I said he was bad. Please, for the ten thousandth time, point out the time I said he was bad. If you take nothing else from this post, take this much: This is the fucking problem I have with Seahawks fans. Nobody has to call Wilson a bad QB, they just have to make a comment that isn't 100% positive and the fanbase will attack it as if it were calling him the worst QB of all time.

Except Wilson is asked to throw downfield more often than any other QB in the NFL.

I prefer the definition the writer in the Fieldgulls article uses for game manager.

a "game manager" is limited -- either NFL-level developmentally or physically -- to the point that an offensive coordinator must massage and adapt a desired scheme to accommodate those deficiencies.

In other words, this means a coordinator or coaching staff literally cannot use the whole playbook. It's not a question of mood or game-situation or preference, you actually have to take that play or group of plays out completely. In terms of NFL-level development, this restriction relates to the quarterback's ability to read defenses, go through progressions, make changes at the line, and process information nearly-instantaneously. Physically, it relates to arm strength.

And I dont think Russell fits that one bit. The playbook isnt limited, he can make all the throws, he can do everything required of an NFL QB.

Throwing deep does not necessarily mean difficult. Wilson also throws more play action than any other QB and has a run game that keeps defenses honest. RGIII was one of the best in the league last year on deep passes with the combination of play action, a great run game and the threat of scrambling himself. Take away just the threat of his scrambling and you wind up with a below average deep ball.

You tell me what you think defenses were game planning for first? The run game that ranked second in attempts and 4th in yards? Or the passing game that ranked 31st in attempts and 26th in yards?

What a hilariously farce of an assumption.

Or a comically awesome statement of fact.

RGIII in 2012, 5th in the league with a 50% accuracy rate on passes travelling 20 yards or more in the air, with 7 TDs and 1 INT. RGIII in 2013, 36th in the league with a 30.4% accuracy rate and 4 TDs to 4 INTs.

Still had a good run game. Still top 4 in attempts on play action. But without the threat of RGIII running defenses didn't bite as hard or as often on the play action/option. His deep passes weren't just below average, they were terrible.

As the Seahawks face 8-in the box below league average the reality of it would indicate that NFL defensive coordinators in fact plan for the pass more than the run. Why would an NFL defense be more worried about a 4.2 YPC run game over a 8 Y/A passing game? Especailly when the Seahawks offensive line is garbage, you dont need 8-men fronts to get pressure on Wilson and contest the run vs Seattle. The Seahawks can get away with running the ball all game long because they know when they need a third down Wilson can accomplish it. When they ran the same offense with the same RB prior to Wilson becoming the QB their offense was among the worst in the NFL.

RGIII in 2012, 5th in the league with a 50% accuracy rate on passes travelling 20 yards or more in the air, with 7 TDs and 1 INT. RGIII in 2013, 36th in the league with a 30.4% accuracy rate and 4 TDs to 4 INTs.

Let me ask it this way. Would you rather have a RB who "only" runs 10 times per game for 100 yards, or 20 times per game for 120 yards? And is the RB who only runs the 10 times "just unable to handle a full workload", etc? Is the 20-time runner somehow "putting the team on his back" and being "relied upon more"? - I'm sure you can see how ridiculous it would sound to take the 20-run RBs side of the argument, yet, there's probably people out there who would do it.

You're judging QBs based on raw pass attempts/dropbacks, rather than completion percentage, Y/A, 20+/40+ yard plays, or any number of more important factors (team leading by 20+, team never behind by 8+ in 4th quarter, etc). Which QB had the most 1st half drop-backs, for example? Wilson out-passed a number of QBs in the 2nd quarter (and had 11 TDs and 0 INTs), including Rivers, Brady and a few others. Because of such strong 1st half performances, the passing game just wasn't needed as much in the 2nd half.

If Seattle didn't have a half dozen or more 18+ blowouts, yes, Wilson would have passed more. If Seattle was behind by more than 7 during any 4th quarter (and they weren't, all year long), he would have passed it more. If Seattle didn't mind subjecting an already-thin WR corps to more big hits on those 3 yard crossing routes (instead of just, you know, running it up the gut), he would have passed more. If we didn't play in the #1 Defensive Division in the NFL, If Wilson didn't come out early for Tarvaris Jackson (unlike, say Cam Newton, who took every pass attempt for the Panthers)...well, you get the point.

This isn't me saying Wilson had a bum shoulder, or that the OC is stupid, or that the OL sucks, or any of the other typical excuses you hear out of people. The D scored a grand total of 32 points - meaning if you took away every one of those points, the Seahawks would STILL be #2 in the NFL in point differential. You don't get that by just having "that defense"--ask the Texans or Dolphins.

TL;DR - If Wilson sucked more, he'd have more yards/attempts, because he'd constantly be putting himself in a hole, and then needing to dig himself out of it. That his 1st half success is held against him is mind-boggling.

Let me ask it this way. Would you rather have a RB who "only" runs 10 times per game for 100 yards, or 20 times per game for 120 yards? And is the RB who only runs the 10 times "just unable to handle a full workload", etc?

This is lacking so much context. I want the run game that gets 120 yards per game. attempts doesn't matter. But if we're talking just the RB, and both guys are playing the same number of games I want the guy getting 100 yards on 10 carries over 120 on 20. You're attempted analogy sucks.

You're judging QBs based on raw pass attempts/dropbacks,

No I'm not.

If Seattle didn't have a half dozen or more 18+ blowouts, yes, Wilson would have passed more.

This is the fucking point I've been trying to make. Wilson isn't asked to be more than a game manager. But the fact that that's all he's asked to be doesn't change the fact that that's the role he fulfills.

If Seattle was behind by more than 7 during any 4th quarter (and they weren't, all year long), he would have passed it more.

You're helping my argument.

If Seattle didn't mind subjecting an already-thin WR corps to more big hits on those 3 yard crossing routes (instead of just, you know, running it up the gut), he would have passed more.

Still helping my argument.

If we didn't play in the #1 Defensive Division in the NFL, If Wilson didn't come out early for Tarvaris Jackson (unlike, say Cam Newton, who took every pass attempt for the Panthers)...well, you get the point.

And you're still helping...well, you get the point.

TL;DR - If Wilson sucked more, he'd have more yards/attempts, because he'd constantly be putting himself in a hole, and then needing to dig himself out of it.

So, in other words he was asked to not fuck up by putting himself in a hole?

The D scored a grand total of 32 points - meaning if you took away every one of those points, the Seahawks would STILL be #2 in the NFL in point differential.

You keep talking about how the lack of defensive scoring apparently means the defense wasn't as good as people think. Of course they would still be number 2 in differential. They allowed fewer points scored than any other team scored on offense. The Seahawks allowed three TDs worth of points or more only 3 times. IIRC 25 teams averaged more than that per game.

Having a great defense does not mean they score a lot for you, it meant they don't let your opponents score a lto.

This is lacking so much context. I want the run game that gets 120 yards per game. attempts doesn't matter. But if we're talking just the RB, and both guys are playing the same number of games I want the guy getting 100 yards on 10 carries over 120 on 20. You're attempted analogy sucks.

Not really. You say my analogy sucks, then feed right into it. There's nothing in that example that would preclude the team from having a 2nd or 3rd plodding RB - just like there was nothing stopping the Seahawks from having T-Jack come in for MULTIPLE games to throw a few passes, and mostly, to hand-off to Turbin/Michael to salt away the game. Guys like Cam Newton took every single pass attempt for their team, and Newton BARELY passed for more yards than Wilson (18 more yards, 0.5% more).

This is the fucking point I've been trying to make. Wilson isn't asked to be more than a game manager. But the fact that that's all he's asked to be doesn't change the fact that that's the role he fulfills.

No, no it isn't, because you're approaching it from a way that doesn't make any sense. If I have you solve some complex mathematical formula, and by some fucking miracle you get the right answer, I'm not going to give you full credit if the 'work' you show has multiple errors in it. And your Wilson analysis contains multiple errors, the first of which is the assumption that Wilson is just kicking back while the Defense/Run Games builds these 10, 15, 20-point leads, when...as I have shown REPEATEDLY...is not the case.

Wilson is an integral part of the team establishing these leads, and as a result of that early success, in the 4th quarter is largely a game manager. This doesn't even remotely compare to a guy like Dilfer a few years back who was a game manager for all 4 quarters. You're calling him a game manager in the same way someone would say Donald Trump "is not a good businessman" - you can say it all you want, and some dumbasses might agree with you, but that doesn't make it correct.

If Seattle was behind by more than 7 during any 4th quarter (and they weren't, all year long), he would have passed it more.

"You're helping my argument." - Not really. See above. What sense does it make to pass it 20 more times in the second half when the 20 in the first half have already gotten you a 10-25 point lead? To prove a point to all the goldberg1303's of the world? Do you think our QB and coaching staff is really that vain? You don't need to be throwing 40-yard bombs in the 3rd up by 20. Zone running, screen passes, some sideline 3rd down passes.....no need to put your players in danger, or keep your Defense on the field (because you just went 3-and-out with 3 incompletions...leading by 20), just to prove a point to people that don't matter.

Crossing routes, etc.

Same thing. See above. Shallow routes are not a staple of our offense, and it has nothing to do with Wilson''s ability to throw them - and everything to do with guys like Zach Miller already having several concussions in his career, Baldwin knocking out a couple teeth a couple years ago, and the list goes on. When was the last time Peyton threw a pass 50 yards in the air? Not very often, because that's not a part of the Broncos' offense. Teams are different, buddy, you just need to learn to deal with it and find a context for it.

Playing in #1 D division, T-Jack coming in, etc.

I....I don't even know what fantasy world you're living in where T-Jack coming into the game has no effect on Wilson's pass attempts, yardage totals, or the categorization of him as a "game manager". Are you even paying attention to your own argument any more? Wilson + T-Jack > Newton in passing yards. The Panthers leaving Newton in late in blowouts should do zero to bolster the argument that he's the better QB.....but lazy people who just look at the year-end totals, and don't dig into ANYTHING, will still make that assumption.

As for the part about, you know, not going balls to the wall with your offensive plans while playing against 4 games against 2 of the Top 6/7 defenses in the entire league...I really, really want to know what kind of morons you think our coaching staff is composed of. Remember when the Cowboys played a Top 5 defense with their "Top 5" offense? I do. You got your fucking shit pushed in 49-17. I bet you were really proud of Romo and his 128 yards passing, weren't you?

So, in other words he was asked to not fuck up by putting himself in a hole?

Let me try this another way. If I balloon up to 400 pounds, then I drop 200 pounds, is that better or worse than going from 220 to 200? Do I deserve more props because I lost 200, rather than "only" losing 20? - The Seahawks have the success they have because they finally have a QB with multiple settings. When the team is down in the 4th, he can flip it into another gear, like vs the Falcons/Bucs/Texans. When the team is going up against a juggernaut like the Saints/Broncos, he can flip it on in the first 3 quarters, lighting up the scoreboard. And, yes, when the team is playing legitimate Top 5 defenses, he can play more conservatively - but still find his shots - like the 1st Cardinals/49ers games. And even then - as I've already covered - in all 3 losses, the Seahawks had a lead in the 4th quarter after a Wilson-led scoring drive. The Defense lost all 3 of those games this year - just like they single-handedly allowed the 49ers to drive down the field and nearly score on the last possession. That wasn't after a Wilson INT/Fumble...that was all Defense, letting them drive that far because Kaep, another guy who is far from a game manager, drove HIS team down the field like a seasoned vet.

You keep talking about how the lack of defensive scoring apparently means the defense wasn't as good as people think. Of course they would still be number 2 in differential. They allowed fewer points scored than any other team scored on offense. The Seahawks allowed three TDs worth of points or more only 3 times. IIRC 25 teams averaged more than that per game.

You've got that completely wrong, which isn't surprising. When people see the Seahawks tied for 8th in points scored, they like to assume "Oh, cuz that defense was scoring all those TDs" - which wasn't the case. Carolina, who had a very similar defense and ranking, and who also scored 4 D/ST TDs, finished with over 50 points less scored on offense. That's a big deal. The fact that their talent is getting snatched up by other teams (Smith to the Ravens, Lafell to the Pats) shows he didn't have "a shit WR corps" or whatever else one might use to write them off. They were just as solid as our guys. But Newton isn't the same QB Wilson is, even with a softer schedule, a comparable WR/RB corps and a similarly-talented defense.

Also, if you're going to pick arbitrary totals ("3 TDs worth of points", wtf?), at least pick one that makes sense: the scoring average on the year: 14.4 points. We allowed over that amount 8 times. In the playoffs, we allowed over that total twice. In the Super Bowl, the Offense scored 21 points....and the Broncos' coaching staff knowing Seattle would never rest - on O, D or ST - until the game was put away, played a large part in how frantic they started getting in the 2nd quarter when things weren't going their way.

And that's the kind of QB Russell is, and offense Seattle has. Which is why some will do anything to push that 'Game Manager' story-line: the alternative, to them, is horrifying. B-but my pocket passer QB! B-but my salary cap hell! B-but my poor drafting for the last decade! No sympathy.

I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here. Passing and Rushing yards are hardly directly comparable. Wilson is a better passer than Newton, is that what you want me to say? The difference is the role each QB fills. Newton IS the offense for the Panthers team. Wilson is not. Who is a better QB is debatable, but the roles they fill is pretty much fact.

No, no it isn't, because you're approaching it from a way that doesn't make any sense. If I have you solve some complex mathematical formula, and by some fucking miracle you get the right answer, I'm not going to give you full credit if the 'work' you show has multiple errors in it.

And if you're some brilliant mathematician who's sole job is working at the McDonald's I manage you're still a fast food worker, no matter how good at math you are. Wilson may be the greatest mathematician in the world and he may use his knowledge to occasionally to better his store in ways other workers can't. But at the end of the day he still works at McDonald's.

Wilson is an integral part of the team establishing these leads, and as a result of that early success, in the 4th quarter is largely a game manager.

As is any QB. The thing is, probably half the starting QBs in the league could fill his role and lead the team to the playoffs/Super Bowl. A Mark Sanchez led Jets team went to two consecutive AFCCG's with a similarly built team. Dilfer, whom you brought up, won a Super Bowl with a similarly built team. Wilson is obviously better than both of those guys, and it's not even close. He still fills the same role if with much better efficiency.

You're calling him a game manager in the same way someone would say Donald Trump "is not a good businessman" - you can say it all you want, and some dumbasses might agree with you, but that doesn't make it correct.

Except Trump built his empire and proved himself along the way. Wilson is the son that went to an Ivy League business school and may be just as capable as his father of building/running the company. But the reality of the situation is all he actually has to do is sit back and not fuck up the company, it runs just fine with any moderately competent person in charge.

Not really. See above. What sense does it make to pass it 20 more times in the second half when the 20 in the first half have already gotten you a 10-25 point lead? To prove a point to all the goldberg1303's of the world? Do you think our QB and coaching staff is really that vain? You don't need to be throwing 40-yard bombs in the 3rd up by 20. Zone running, screen passes, some sideline 3rd down passes.....no need to put your players in danger, or keep your Defense on the field (because you just went 3-and-out with 3 incompletions...leading by 20), just to prove a point to people that don't matter.

Considering you just perfectly described a 'game manager situation,' yes, you're still helping my argument. I've said multiple times, it's not a question of his ability, it's simply what he's asked to do.

I....I don't even know what fantasy world you're living in where T-Jack coming into the game has no effect on Wilson's pass attempts, yardage totals, or the categorization of him as a "game manager".

Similar stats don't prove two QBs are equal or fill the same role? How does Jackson's 39 snaps and 13 pass attempts change the role Wilson fills on the team? You're way to focused on this largely irrelevant information.

The Panthers leaving Newton in late in blowouts should do zero to bolster the argument that he's the better QB.....but lazy people who just look at the year-end totals, and don't dig into ANYTHING, will still make that assumption.

Care to point out where I've said this? I will say he's more important to his team's success right now than Wilson is to his own. And yes, he's arguably better, but so is Wilson arguably better than Newton. But again, none of this is relevant to whether or not Wilson fills a game manager role.

Let me try this another way. If I balloon up to 400 pounds, then I drop 200 pounds, is that better or worse than going from 220 to 200?

Doesn't really matter which is better, you're still 200 pounds. Just like it doesn't matter how good Wilson is or is capable of playing, he's still just filling a game manager role for the vast majority of his snaps.

The Seahawks have the success they have because they finally have a QB with multiple settings.

I've never once argued he's incapable of being more, or that he hasn't shown he's capable. In fact, I've said in the past if not in this specific string of comments that he has shown the ability. None of that changes the role he fills the majority of the time.

"Oh, cuz that defense was scoring all those TDs" - which wasn't the case.

You're literally the only person I've ever heard that from.

which wasn't the case. Carolina, who had a very similar defense and ranking, and who also scored 4 D/ST TDs, finished with over 50 points less scored on offense.

Only 21 of those points were the result of TDs. Not that the Panthers have any relevance to the role Wilson fills on the Seahawks. What you're ignoring in all your talk of the Seahawks' offensive scoring is the fact that they kicked the 5th most FGs in the league and their average drive had the 3rd best starting point in the league.

Why are you so intent on making this into Wilson vs Newton? It's irrelevant.

Also, if you're going to pick arbitrary totals ("3 TDs worth of points", wtf?), at least pick one that makes sense: the scoring average on the year: 14.4 points.

It's not arbitrary at all. The Seahawks just needed to average 21 points per game, or 3 TDs, to go 13-3. 22 teams in the NFL managed to average 21 points per game last year. 21 points per game also would have won all 3 Playoff games, including the Super Bowl.

And that's the kind of QB Russell is, and offense Seattle has. Which is why some will do anything to push that 'Game Manager' story-line: the alternative, to them, is horrifying. B-but my pocket passer QB! B-but my salary cap hell! B-but my poor drafting for the last decade! No sympathy.

I think it more has to do with a QB that limits the playbook. Someone who can't make every throw you want them to and doesn't have the mental capacity to lead an offense. Wilson doesn't have either of those problems. Our offense is not limited by him at all so I wouldn't really consider him some kind of game manager.

I don't really like that "game manager" has such a negative connotation. To me, it should be a guy who intentionally eats clock and minimizes his risks to let a superior team grind out an inferior team. If the 2013 Seahawks played the 2013 Jaguars, Jacksonville's only chance would be to go +6 on turnovers or something.

The smart quarterback is going to go go those easy, high percentage throws rather than bomb it down field constantly because he's confident his defense will hold and that his receivers and running backs are going to gash the defense. Why is that quarterback looked down on for making the smart plays instead of the flashiest plays?

I read the article and i agree with it. I pretty much copied it word for word but it makes more sense than "a guy who doesn't throw the ball a lot". Wouldn't you agree it makes a lot more sense that a guy who limits your offense is a game manager not someone who lets you be free with your play calls and use everything in the playbook?

No. A guy who limits your offense is a shitty QB. Nobody calls Blaine Gabbert a game manager, they call him a shitty QB. A game manager is not necessarily a shitty QB, it's just a job that a shitty QB can do and succeed in given the right team. But that does not make a game manager a shitty QB. If I buy a jacked up 4X4 truck legitimately fitted out for offroading but drive it like a Civic, is it incapable of offroading because of how I use it? No, it's still capable, I just don't use it as such.

A game manager is a QB that isn't asked to do much other than not fuck up. Doesn't mean he's incapable of carrying the team, just means they don't need/want him to. Don't turn it over, let the run game do the bulk of the offensive work and let the defense keep the scoring low. Manage the game.

Being a game manager has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with game plan. That's not to say every game manager can be a great QB. Most can't, which is why the term has such negative connotations. But then you get guys like Wilson, who can do more but don't need to. He's the current Troy Aikman, though less proven. A very good QB on a great fucking team. Does everything that's asked of him and is important to the team, but at the end of the day is managing the game while the defense and run game win it.

The problem is, the general consensus on that is several QBs in the league could win those games if they had a defense that allowed an average of under 15 points per game. Because the defense keeps scoring so low he doesn't have to take over a whole game, he just has to show occasional flashes inside the game. Again, that's not a comment on ability or inability, just what's asked of him. But the point is, it doesn't necessarily take an elite QB to put up ridiculously efficient numbers on a stacked defensive team.

Take Alex Smith for example, he was absolutely terrible. Until Harbaugh came along and put him into the game manager position on a team with a great defense and solid run game. He's made some throws and plays that won the game over the last few years too. Wilson is better than Smith, not comparing them talent wise, simply the situation's they are currently in.

It pisses them off because they equate it with calling him Trent Dilfer. Thing is, I've never seen anyone deny he's much much better than that.

The Seahawks journalist that decided to redefine the term to, 'a QB that limits the playbook,' so he could prove Wilson wasn't one, didn't help matters either. Now a lot of Seahawks fans are convinced game manager is synonymous with shitty QB, and it's not.

Why doesn't it take an elite QB to put up efficient numbers on a stacked defense? The defense doesn't help his statistics. He's putting up more than efficient numbers by the way. They're pretty damn amazing. You could say it didn't take an elite QB this year with denver to put up that season because of the offensive talent around Manning as well but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Take Alex Smith for example, he was absolutely terrible. Until Harbaugh came along and put him into the game manager position on a team with a great defense and solid run game. He's made some throws and plays that won the game over the last few years too. Wilson is better than Smith, not comparing them talent wise, simply the situation's they are currently in.

.

You could say it didn't take an elite QB this year with denver to put up that season because of the offensive talent around Manning as well but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

A couple problems with that logic. How many QBs have put up the kind of season Manning just had? 2? 3? How many of them weren't elite? Zero. How many teams have had offenses around their QB like Manning had this year? A lot over the years. How many not-elite QBs have put up the kind of season Manning just did? Zero. And if that's not enough for you, Peyton Manning has 16 years in the league, 15 of which starting 16 games. That's a hell of a lot more to go off of than 2 seasons for Russel Wilson.

As to your first point, you have to consider that Wilson's low number attempts is not indicative of a small pass to run ratio--and, by extension, decreased confidence in his ability--but rather a low number of total offensive plays overall.

The Seahawks had a fairly even run/pass split, they just allowed the clock to run.

As you know, when he did throw the ball he was able to complete a high percentage of throws with a remarkably high yards per attempt/ completion.

What I resent is Wilson being indicted because he doesn't play the game like Rodgers or Brees. The assumption being that unless you are throwing the ball a lot it means you can't do it and are therefore...not as good as the others.

Russell Wilson does make a lot of big plays though. Hell, it was him (plus Percy Harvin's nice return), that allowed the Seahawks to score a touchdown vs the Vikings with 30 second left in the half. This was a picture of the 20 yard TD pass he made. The fact that he was able to pass over a Rhodes covered receiver is incredibly impressive. Here's the NFL.com video to it, too He makes the right plays at the right times. He is in that middle ground between a Field General (Brady, Manning, to a slightly less extend Ryan) and a Game Manager (Alex Smith). He's not making a whole bunch of crazy awesome plays, but he's reading defenses and making good plays when they count.

Rogers throws 33 times a game, Wilson 25. We're talking one less pass attempt per drive per game, maybe even less. People really overrate how big these differences seem. They add up in the counting stats by the end of the season but on a per game basis are really not much. And there are also a lot of blowouts the Seahawks have where Wilson doesn't even throw at all after the first half because they are up so far and just want to play clock control.

Russell Wilson's YPA is highest in the NFL isnt it? He doesnt play in a dink and dunk offense.. In fact, he probably makes more explosive plays than most other QBs. He is also one of the best deep ball throwers right now

The Seahawks offense as a whole was one of the best in the NFL in what gets categorized as "explosive plays"

Part of the reason they are so efficient is their run game. It sets up the pass. Wilson ptetty solidly led the lead with 34% of his pass plays being play-action. The average play qb rating for play-action plays is 99.2 and the average for non play-action is 83.3.

What you provide doesn't support your argument. Yeah those teams do well with play-action even though they don't have dominant runners. All teams do. But you have to respect the playaction even more when you have a good back. Wilson's play-action is more effective than those other teams play action because of lynch and the fact that they run the ball more than any other team. You have to respect the run when the opposing team runs 55% of the time with one of the better backs in the league.

He also had a much lower volume of attempts than Wilson. Only 89 carries to 407 attempts. Also when you look at his career stats the number goes back to a more average YPC yet Russell Wilson's YPA doesn't drop.

Russel Wilson has 2 seasons. That's irrelevant. But Starks had 89 carries, McCoy led the league with 314. Peyton Manning led passing attempts with 659, Wilson had 257. Which means Starks had about 29% of the top work load, Wilson had about 39% of the top work load. I'm not saying Wilson is to quarterbacks what Starks is to running backs, I'm saying that measuring a player purely on efficiency is, frankly, stupid. Volume matters, and Wilson's volume is very low for a guy who supposedly leads that offense.

Wilson didn't have 257 passing attempts this year. He had 257 completions. It isn't stupid to measure in efficiency either when you have an offense like ours. Would you rather put up 500 yards passing and win the game or 250? it doesn't fucking matter how many yards you have it matters what you do when you are put in a position to make plays. Wilson has shown over that he can do anything he is asked to do. We had a top 10 offense scoring wise and Wilson was giving our teams a lead in the first half then Lynch was killing the clock in the second. There wasn't a single blowout where Wilson didn't get taken out for our back up Travaris. He just did not need to score a lot and throw the ball a lot because our offense was so efficient he would put up enough points to just waste away clock.

Efficiency decreases with volume. The "top" passing offenses shoot for medium efficiency on high-volume. The seahawks offense is predicated on low volume with high-efficiency, big-play throws. They would not be nearly as successful running the same passing plays 40-50 times a game instead of 20-25 times a game every game.

Why would the Seahawks even want to be a "top" passing offense. The #1 passing offense has never won the super bowl. They had a stout running game and a great defense. Just because Wilson isn't asked to throw a bunch doesn't mean he can't. The number one stat in football is "wins." Wilson's skill set inflates that stat rather well.

For a second I thought you replied to the wrong person, because I didnt say any of that. Regardless..

The #1 passing offense has never won the super bowl.

That is, and always will be a ridiculous argument. What if the #1 kicking team has never won the SB, does that mean you dont want to be good at kicking field goals? No, of course not. That piece of "trivia" tells us balanced teams win the Super Bowl, not that really good passing offenses dont win the Super Bowl.

Just because Wilson isn't asked to throw a bunch doesn't mean he can't.

I didnt say that, anywhere. I said his efficiency would drop with increased attempts (for a multitude of reasons). I was merely pointing out to the guy above me that other teams arent trying to get a high ypa with a few big explosive plays, they are shooting for a medium consistency with high-volume. Two different, and incomparible, offensive philosiphies. Wilson's high ypa means nothing compared to the ypa of QBs who are asked to do entirely different things.

Its not an indictment, and I dont know why people assume it has to be.

This just isn't true anymore in today's NFL. Most teams that spread the field and throw all the time have very efficient passing games. Now you can argue the chicken and the egg, but efficiency doesn't go down the more they pass the ball.

Most teams that spread the field and throw all the time have very efficient passing games.

That clearly isnt true. The only high-volume passing offenses that come close to the same efficiency are those with elite QBs. Your "average" QBs dont fare nearly as well with a high-volume passing system.